Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

“Bail Denied to Accused Allegedly Running Jihadi WhatsApp Group: Allahabad Court Cites Gravity of Allegations”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judicial decision, the Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., presiding over Court No. 75, rejected the bail application of an accused in a case involving allegations of running a WhatsApp group that spread jihadi literature and videos. The applicant, identified as Inamul Haq alias Inamul Imtiyaz, was charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments.

The FIR lodged against Inamul Haq revealed disturbing allegations. The applicant was alleged to have formed a WhatsApp group that disseminated literature classified as jihadi, along with sharing videos promoting extremist ideologies. The applicant was reportedly the administrator of the group and even admitted to aspiring to become a “jihadi.” The FIR also mentioned that Inamul Haq was associated with a group known as “Lashkar,” and that he had been operating a WhatsApp group for a significant duration.

The prosecution argued that the applicant’s involvement went beyond merely spreading literature. It was alleged that the WhatsApp group actively facilitated the acquisition of weapons, further escalating the gravity of the charges. The group was purportedly responsible for enticing individuals to join its ranks.

The court’s observation stressed the seriousness of the allegations and the potential threat posed to public order. Citing the relevant legal provisions, including Section 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, the court highlighted the offense of conspiring to overawe the Central or State Government through criminal force. While acknowledging the right to practice and propagate religion as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, the court noted that the nature of the allegations indicated the potential conspiracy to commit a serious offense.

In light of the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk to public order, the court concluded that no case for granting bail was established. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

This decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious freedoms and potential threats to national security. The court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the allegations underscores the need to ensure public order while safeguarding fundamental rights.

The rejection of the bail application sends a strong message about the court’s commitment to upholding the law and maintaining public safety in cases that involve potential conspiracy and promotion of extremist ideologies.

Date of Decision: 9.8.2023

Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz  vs State of U.P.   

Similar News